The Turf War Returns
ridski said:
If it increases property values I'm voting against it.
Don't worry - as long as everyone's goes up proportionally, no one's taxes should be impacted.
The exact opposite has been argued by Hilton residents who have stated that artificial turf at DeHart will lower their property values due to the loss of natural grass on the fields there.
I learned during the advisory committee meeting I attended yesterday that the petition for a referendum on artificial turf has over 1,000 signatures. Referendum here we come.
joan_crystal said:
The exact opposite has been argued by Hilton residents who have stated that artificial turf at DeHart will lower their property values due to the loss of natural grass on the fields there.
I learned during the advisory committee meeting I attended yesterday that the petition for a referendum on artificial turf has over 1,000 signatures. Referendum here we come.
Did property values go down in the area around Underhill when turf replaced grass there? What about in the other communities where these fields have been installed? There are more than 10,000 around the country, so if there's a connection, surely a trend could be identified.
You can be for or against these fields for numerous reasons, but there's absolutely no evidence that property values would go down by changing the surface of two soccer fields in the back of one park. That's complete speculation that people who oppose the field for other reasons are engaging in to get people on their side.
There’s Chyzowych field that really could use some turf and a do over.
the Hilton neighborhood wants their park to remain the way it is. That’s my neighborhood. It’s not about property values. It’s about the value of the park. Maplewood was this sleepy little town not many people knew about, until the mid town direct brought in the people who are accustomed to artificial turf and concrete playgrounds…one would think you moved here to get away from that. I know I did.
Jaytee said:
There’s Chyzowych field that really could use some turf and a do over.
the Hilton neighborhood wants their park to remain the way it is. That’s my neighborhood. It’s not about property values. It’s about the value of the park. Maplewood was this sleepy little town not many people knew about, until the mid town direct brought in the people who are accustomed to artificial turf and concrete playgrounds…one would think you moved here to get away from that. I know I did.
It is a public park - it is not "theirs."
Jaytee said:
There’s Chyzowych field that really could use some turf and a do over.
the Hilton neighborhood wants their park to remain the way it is. That’s my neighborhood. It’s not about property values. It’s about the value of the park. Maplewood was this sleepy little town not many people knew about, until the mid town direct brought in the people who are accustomed to artificial turf and concrete playgrounds…one would think you moved here to get away from that. I know I did.
The "I am here now, everyone else stay away" approach has led to a lot of problems in this country .
I moved here to get away from my landlord’s kids.
16 years later they’re still not here, so I win.
chalmers said:
You can be for or against these fields for numerous reasons, but there's absolutely no evidence that property values would go down by changing the surface of two soccer fields in the back of one park. That's complete speculation that people who oppose the field for other reasons are engaging in to get people on their side.
A conclusion of this 2001 “review of the empirical evidence,” which looked at a couple of dozen studies over the decades, is that the more active a park is, the less it benefits nearby property values. I wouldn’t take it to the bank, but an inference can be made from the paper that turfing fields to increase a park’s activity would reduce property values.
jimmurphy said:
Jaytee said:
There’s Chyzowych field that really could use some turf and a do over.
the Hilton neighborhood wants their park to remain the way it is. That’s my neighborhood. It’s not about property values. It’s about the value of the park. Maplewood was this sleepy little town not many people knew about, until the mid town direct brought in the people who are accustomed to artificial turf and concrete playgrounds…one would think you moved here to get away from that. I know I did.It is a public park - it is not "theirs."
Yes, and I would never presume to exclude the opinion of Hilton neighborhood residents on an issue of concern to Maplewood Village. Not sure why this is different.
As for Chyzowych, the physical condition of the land and nearly complete lack of parking make it a much worse candidate for turf. Maybe fixing those things is possible at, say, three times the cost of what it would take to put turf on DeHart. I don't think the town would go for that.
chalmers said:
jimmurphy said:
Jaytee said:
There’s Chyzowych field that really could use some turf and a do over.
the Hilton neighborhood wants their park to remain the way it is. That’s my neighborhood. It’s not about property values. It’s about the value of the park. Maplewood was this sleepy little town not many people knew about, until the mid town direct brought in the people who are accustomed to artificial turf and concrete playgrounds…one would think you moved here to get away from that. I know I did.It is a public park - it is not "theirs."
Yes, and I would never presume to exclude the opinion of Hilton neighborhood residents on an issue of concern to Maplewood Village. Not sure why this is different.
As for Chyzowych, the physical condition of the land and nearly complete lack of parking make it a much worse candidate for turf. Maybe fixing those things is possible at, say, three times the cost of what it would take to put turf on DeHart. I don't think the town would go for that.
Chyz is also problematic because it's in a flood plain. Water and drainage are big issues.
There is some interesting data in that study, though it's 20 years old and even the author acknowledges that the diversity of the park neighborhoods studied makes it difficult to form generalizations.DaveSchmidt said:
chalmers said:
You can be for or against these fields for numerous reasons, but there's absolutely no evidence that property values would go down by changing the surface of two soccer fields in the back of one park. That's complete speculation that people who oppose the field for other reasons are engaging in to get people on their side.
A conclusion of this 2001 “review of the empirical evidence,” which looked at a couple of dozen studies over the decades, is that the more active a park is, the less it benefits nearby property values. I wouldn’t take it to the bank, but an inference can be made from the paper that turfing fields to increase a park’s activity would reduce property values.
The general gist of the study is that while having a park in the neighborhood benefits property values, this benefit is diminished for the people who live closest to "nuisance-generating" parks. This is a reasonable concept. It's great to have a park within walking distance, but if you live across the street from a park where sports are being played at night, there can be annoyances (which are obvious and would be built into the purchase price of a home).
However, in DeHart's case, we're not talking about removing a meadow of marigolds to put in two lit artificial turf soccer fields. We're just making the ones that are already there and being played on a bit more useful. Given its location, I'd also question how many homes are actually in the zone were the property value benefit would be diminished, but that's another kettle of fish.
Realtors are not telling prospective buyers "Yes, you see that park with two lit soccer fields, but don't worry about it, the grass field is so lousy that one-third of the time they can't even play on it."
chalmers said:
The general gist of the study is that while having a park in the neighborhood benefits property values, this benefit is diminished for the people who live closest to "nuisance-generating" parks.
Not just “nuisance-generating” parks, but also “a heavily used park catering to large numbers of active recreation users” — use that the turfing of fields is intended to increase. Having already acknowledged the paper’s age, the decades of older research it covers and the uncertainty of the inference I described, I’ll leave it at that.
DaveSchmidt said:
chalmers said:
The general gist of the study is that while having a park in the neighborhood benefits property values, this benefit is diminished for the people who live closest to "nuisance-generating" parks.Not just “nuisance-generating” parks, but also “a heavily used park catering to large numbers of active recreation users” — use that the turfing of fields is intended to increase. Having already acknowledged the paper’s age, the decades of older research it covers and the uncertainty of the inference I described, I’ll leave it at that.
I understand. For our purposes, I'm including organized night sports where perhaps two dozen cars of parents are going in and out as a nuisance-generating activity for those who live nearby (the article uses 500 feet as a benchmark) a park.
However, in Newark and other places referred to in the study, the diminished property-value increase associated with "active recreation users" doesn't seem to describe parents going out to watch their kids play a Cougar game at 8 p.m., but pickup games and people who are, for lack of a better term, hanging out. Neither of which is affected in any way by whether the field has turf or grass.
chalmers said:
Did property values go down in the area around Underhill when turf replaced grass there? What about in the other communities where these fields have been installed? There are more than 10,000 around the country, so if there's a connection, surely a trend could be identified.
You can be for or against these fields for numerous reasons, but there's absolutely no evidence that property values would go down by changing the surface of two soccer fields in the back of one park. That's complete speculation that people who oppose the field for other reasons are engaging in to get people on their side.
You cannot compare Underhill and DeHart as relates to real property values. Underhill is an athletic field owned by the school district. DeHart is a municipal park serving the surrounding community for multiple activities, one of which is the playing of team sports on the two fields used for that purpose but also for a variety of other recreational pursuits. While, I am not sure that property values will decrease in the Hilton neighborhood should artificial turf be installed at DeHart Park, I can understand how the loss of grass fields in a neighborhood where lawns are tiny, if they exist at all, could deter some prospective residents from buying their house there.
chalmers said:
Yes, and I would never presume to exclude the opinion of Hilton neighborhood residents on an issue of concern to Maplewood Village. Not sure why this is different.
As for Chyzowych, the physical condition of the land and nearly complete lack of parking make it a much worse candidate for turf. Maybe fixing those things is possible at, say, three times the cost of what it would take to put turf on DeHart. I don't think the town would go for that.
Chyzowych maintained by South Orange, not Maplewood. Maplewood residents would not have a say as to whether Chyzowych was covered in artificial turf should that matter appear as a ballot question in November.
joan_crystal said:
chalmers said:
Did property values go down in the area around Underhill when turf replaced grass there? What about in the other communities where these fields have been installed? There are more than 10,000 around the country, so if there's a connection, surely a trend could be identified.
You can be for or against these fields for numerous reasons, but there's absolutely no evidence that property values would go down by changing the surface of two soccer fields in the back of one park. That's complete speculation that people who oppose the field for other reasons are engaging in to get people on their side.
You cannot compare Underhill and DeHart as relates to real property values. Underhill is an athletic field owned by the school district. DeHart is a municipal park serving the surrounding community for multiple activities, one of which is the playing of team sports on the two fields used for that purpose but also for a variety of other recreational pursuits. While, I am not sure that property values will decrease in the Hilton neighborhood should artificial turf be installed at DeHart Park, I can understand how the loss of grass fields in a neighborhood where lawns are tiny, if they exist at all, could deter some prospective residents from buying their house there.
We can't compare the effect, if any, that other nearby towns have experienced by putting turf on a field, because Maplewood is oh-so-different. This includes Volunteer Park in Union, which is five blocks away from DeHart.
Now, we can't compare the effect of a turf field in Maplewood, because it's in a different part of town. I take your point that lawns are smaller near DeHart. On the other hand, there isn't an even larger park area three blocks away from Underhill in the way that Maplecrest is from DeHart.
I respect that you're against the turf and there are several reasons for that, but you can't bring in the ever-present property value boogeyman and then dismiss out of hand real-world comparisons from the same town and square mile where nothing of the sort happened.
If there was an effect on property values in the Underhill area, it stands to reason it would have been when the sports complex went up in the first place or expanded. Unless the switch from grass to turf on the football field notably increased the site’s use.
DaveSchmidt said:
If there was an effect on property values in the Underhill area, it stands to reason it would have been when the sports complex went up in the first place or expanded. Unless the switch from grass to turf on the football field notably increased the site’s use.
That's it exactly. Any shift in property value would occur when you go from non-playing field to playing field, not from playing field to playing field with somewhat fewer cancellations due to an improved surface.
chalmers said:
That's it exactly. Any shift in property value would occur when you go from non-playing field to playing field, not from playing field to playing field with somewhat fewer cancellations due to an improved surface.
My impression was that the stakes of turfing DeHart were higher than “somewhat fewer cancellations.”
One of the bigger changes is likely be longer seasons - and the ability to play in winter. Currently, Maplewood's fields are closed mid-November, and re-open in April -- typically with many cancellations in April/May due to wet fields.
The 4-5 months of field closure from Nov-April are not when I play (I hate the cold), but I know many who do play various sports during those months on fields outside our town.
The issue is not the location of the two fields. The issue is the ownership of the fields (school district) vs (municipal), the use to which the fields are being put (athletic stadium) vs (multi-use park), and the intended users of the facility (student athletes) vs (athletes on municipal and private teams plus the general population of park goers using the fields for all sorts of active and passive recreation). Underhill and DeHart simply are not comparable. Now if you want to compare DeHart with Memorial, Maplecrest, Borden, or Orchard that would be a different story.
For the record, I never wrote that property values in Hilton would decline if artificial turf were installed at DeHart. I wrote that some residents in the Hilton neighborhood said that they were concerned that their property values would decline if artificial turf were installed on the field. If you listen to the four township committee meetings during which members of the public spoke on the subject of the artificial turf proposal, you will hear those comments for yourself.
As I have written here and elsewhere on social media, my primary concern is that installing artificial turf at DeHart Park will not solve the overuse problem. It could make matters worse if the result is a battle between the haves (who gain permits to play at DeHart) and the have nots (who continue to be scheduled to play on the other fields, which remain in poor condition). I am not suggesting this will happen, rather that it is a possibility.
joan_crystal said:
... As I have written here and elsewhere on social media, my primary concern (emphasis added) is that installing artificial turf at DeHart Park will not solve the overuse problem. It could make matters worse if the result is a battle between the haves (who gain permits to play at DeHart) and the have nots (who continue to be scheduled to play on the other fields, which remain in poor condition). I am not suggesting this will happen, rather that it is a possibility.
This have/have not distinction seems to be an all-or-nothing argument, as in "all of the fields should be converted to turf or none of them should." By being unable to "fully solve" the problem, we shouldn't try to better the situation? Throw up our hands and ensure that everyone should have universal access to poor fields?!
I reject this argument.
By improving none of the fields, they all remain unplayable during and following poor weather. One of your proposed solutions is to foist this problem off onto other towns and their already-turfed fields, at expense presumably to be paid by the teams - fee for service. Again, where is the equity there?
I am quite sure that the potential problem regarding permitting can be readily managed via setting aside blocks of time for the various constituencies. Does this seem insurmountable?
I am curious as to your response regarding the proximity of Maplecrest Park. One could properly argue that the Hilton neighborhood has more-than-average access to recreation space with both Maplecrest and DeHart at its borders, as compared to other parts of Maplewood.
Why can't the larger, unlighted, equally accessible and grass-fielded Maplecrest Park serve as more of a multi-use facility, while DeHart serves as more of a dedicated athletics park, leveraging the investment in the lights?
(Edited to correct my brain fart on the park name)
jimmurphy said:
while Boyden serves as more of a dedicated athletics park, leveraging the investment in the lights?
I presume that you mean "Borden" Park (a common mistake) -surrounded closely by dozens of homes. There is also zero parking there except on the streets of those same residents.
It can be noted that if the town had bonded and installed the turf field the last time this issue was voted down we would now still be paying for THAT bond while that same field, having exceeded it's usable life span would now have to be torn up and replaced with a new one at equal cost and with a new bond.
But hey, what's a few million dollars here and there if our kids can kick a ball around more often on an over-heated planet.
the previous plan was for state and county grants to pay that bond. But ok, we can assume that wouldn't have been the case, and the township would have been on the hook for the expense.
the word "million" in this context seems as if it's a big number, but it really isn't. At the interest rates we've seen over the past decade, two million dollars paid back over 10 years, spread out over roughly 6,000 homes in Maplewood is not a huge amount.
Is forty or fifty bucks a year per home too much to pay for increased access to recreational opportunities? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. But IMHO it's better perspective than saying it is "millions."
A. The state and county was never going to pay in full for that bond. To make it sound as though it was going to be a free field is as false assertion now as it was then and when pointed out was one of the main reasons it was voted down.
B. Ah math, millions is still millions no matter how teeny you try to slice it up to make it sound more palatable, much like the false narrative that someone else was going to pay for it all in the past.
C: "increased recreational opportunities" is such an attractive yet vague catchy catch-all. Sounds like it should be in a political ad.
I used to coach my daughter's soccer team and continue to be amazed at the presumed preeminence of many sports parents expectations for what their kids "need", no MUST HAVE and that thus all others should bow and provide no matter what the objections.
PS: I wonder how hot it would have been on a turf field today.
ml1 said:
the previous plan was for state and county grants to pay that bond. But ok, we can assume that wouldn't have been the case, and the township would have been on the hook for the expense.
the word "million" in this context seems as if it's a big number, but it really isn't. At the interest rates we've seen over the past decade, two million dollars paid back over 10 years, spread out over roughly 6,000 homes in Maplewood is not a huge amount.
Is forty or fifty bucks a year per home too much to pay for increased access to recreational opportunities? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. But IMHO it's better perspective than saying it is "millions."
The grants only covered part of the cost.
Back to the current debate. A petition for a referendum on artificial turf has been submitted.
By ALIA C. COVELPublishedAugust 10, 2021 at 7:33 PM
MAPLEWOOD, NJ — A petition to put the bonding ordinance that would fund artificial turf at DeHart Park on the ballot as a debt referendum was submitted to the Maplewood Clerk’s Office yesterday, Aug. 9.
Some 45 community members made “a total group effort” to collect the 1,080 signatures submitted, said Camilla Flannery, who helped to organize the effort. Being the heart of summer vacation, “it was a tough time period to do this,” she said, but finding volunteers wasn’t as hard as she feared it would be. “Everybody came together for this issue.”
Flannery said she got involved because she was shocked that it passed in the first place.
“No one I knew knew about [the vote] and everyone I knew was against it, so it was like, how could this happen?” she said. She said she had not seen any public outreach about the topic, and it frustrated her. “Now we have to petition to get this to be a conversation, because it wasn’t before,” she said.
Volunteer Bob McCoy agreed. He said that, from his engineering background, he knows that “when you talk to all the stakeholders, you get a better decision. That didn’t happen here.”
The volunteers canvassed their neighborhoods and at the park for signatures. “In the hundreds of conversations I had,” Flannery said, “I only had one family who didn’t see the issue” with having artificial turf installed.
McCoy explained that to get it on the ballot, they had 20 days after the posting of the approved ordinance for the bonding to submit the signatures of 15 percent of the number of Maplewood residents who cast votes in the most recent general election in which members of the state Assembly were elected. That number was 765, and “we passed that number in about 10 days,” said McCoy. “It was a remarkable community volunteer effort.”
McCoy, a 27-year resident of Maplewood, has been involved with this issue before. A similar bond ordinance was passed in 2007, with an ensuing petition and a debt referendum in 2008, wherein the bonding for artificial turf was voted down.
Unfortunately, McCoy said, “after that win, there was very little support for [maintaining] high quality fields.” He said the idea that an organic field was tried in the intervening years is “a distorted narrative.” The fields were “not consistently cared for,” nor were they executed well, he added.
The petition is now in the hands of Maplewood Township Clerk Liz Fritzen. She and her staff will vet the signatures, and in five days will announce whether the debt referendum will be on a ballot in the future. It is unknown if there is enough time to get it on this November’s ballot.
Why should we lay down artificial turf on precious green space for athletes only? I coached my son’s soccer team back in the early 90’s in dehart. Rain or shine. If some people didn’t like their kids getting muddy, they took them out of the sport. Their loss.
talking about another $50 monthly on property taxes as insignificant is not going to make it any easier. People are already paying too much.
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
If it increases property values I'm voting against it.